AWD (no flaming please), and no mention of the Audi

[mrc24x]

Thanks Varkswo for 'splainin to slowoldpooo that Corvettes are not running 410 rwhp in A or S. The C5Z's running in A/S are around 350-360 rwhp on a dynojet and that puts them as close to the limit as anyone wants to be. There is one Vette that I am aware of that has ~ 400-405 rwhp. He also weighs over 3400 lbs vs the 3180ish that most of the others are running.

 

I said it earlier and I'll say it again....the wt/hp limit is the SAME for both classes. So if you can hang w/ TTA vettes than spend some jack on aero mods,etc to get your car to run w/ the TTS cars.

 

Regarding rule changes....I was bumped 2 classes from last year along w/ many other people. That's the way it goes. My car (w/ my driving ability) was not competitive in TTA this year with the mods that I chose. My choices are: 1) Change my mods to see if it helps and stay in A.

2) Try a totally different setup and change classes 3) Hire a better driver or improve my skills 4) Change cars.

 

It's hard to justify the complaint if your car AND driver is not maximized for the class. Most of the guys setting the incredible times have a history of success in other forms of driving/racing.(autocross,etc...) Not to mention the fact that GPS data logging has trickled down to TT.

 

My suggestion to you would be to dump the aftermarket turbo and class your car by points or be prepared to spend some money for a lot of track time to test out the new parts.

Cheers

 

**You are the one w/ the aftermarket turbo ahe?? If not then I guess that advice wouldn't help much.

 

 

 

[/b]

Edited October 30, 2007 by Guest

[1LapSRT]

See...there goes that big HP assumption again. I have nothing that high in HP and I am only FWD (w/ 4 doors). Yet I am competitive. You know that all the suspension is free now that you are in TTS. No more points for the goodies underneath!

 

410 hp would make me even with the Vettes in TTS. If they can have it, why not me?

 

If 410whp is where you want to be, then get there! If not, then Thank You for bolstering the contingency money. End of story.

 

Why is there the 4 door credit????

 

I would think it comes from the fact that MOST 4 doors are shaped like bricks and MOST 2 doors are not. Would you care to compare the profile of my neon to your transam?

[roadracetransam]

 

Why is there the 4 door credit????

 

I would think it comes from the fact that MOST 4 doors are shaped like bricks and MOST 2 doors are not. Would you care to compare the profile of my neon to your transam?

 

It may be true, but consider this! We all need to lower the driver/passanger windows. In most 2 door cars that creates a huge gapping hole on the side of the car, that channeles air into a big "bag" (the car) This creates a huge amount of drag. On 4 door cars the side windows are half the size, so a lot less air is entering the cabin, creating less drag. On most cars in the first 6" from the A pillar there is little air entering due to the areo off the windshield. A Neon has front windows that are ~23" leaving 17" of open hole to air to enter through. On the Trans Am there is a 40" window leaving a 34" hole.

That is twice the size, so twice the CFM of air is holding the Trans Am back.

Plus the Trans Am is wider, so the total frontal surface area of both cars are closer than you think.

[slowoldpoop]

Thanks Varkswo for 'splainin to slowoldpooo that Corvettes are not running 410 rwhp in A or S. ]

 

The Evil Banker, who finshed second in TTS at the nationals, told me he detuned his motor to 410 hp so he could move from TTU to TTS, and it was verified within 5 hp of that on the NASA dyno at Mid-Ohio.

[Varkwso]

Thanks Varkswo for 'splainin to slowoldpooo that Corvettes are not running 410 rwhp in A or S. ]

 

The Evil Banker, who finshed second in TTS at the nationals, told me he detuned his motor to 410 hp so he could move from TTU to TTS, and it was verified within 5 hp of that on the NASA dyno at Mid-Ohio.

 

Then the evil banker had a race weight of 3567 - the ZO6 weight is normally around 3180 - so he must be a big fella (I can relate!) and/or he took advantage of the ballast rule.

[Greg G.]

Golly whiz bang, this thread is getting downright interesting. I thought it was over about 50 posts ago, but it seems to have a life of its own.

 

It hasn't been locked down yet which means:

 

a) Greg is on vacation in Tahiti and has no access to the Internet or

b) the points being made on both sides are valid, and worth discussing.

 

I vote for (b).

 

Rich

 

It should have been over 13 pages ago, and I wish that I was in Tahiti. And, I was very close to locking it when you kids started calling each other names. Frankly, this thread is boring and repetitive. I disagree with most of the arguments being put forth in favor of changing either the AWD penalty or the 4 door reward. There is a bunch of non-sense in here, including that TTA cars are as fast as optimally setup TTS cars, and that most of the Corvettes in TTA or TTS make over 365 rwhp on a Dynojet. The fact that a certain TTA driver performed very admirably at the Championships compared to the TTS drivers is a testament to his ability to understand the rules, setup the car properly, and drive the snot out of it. If you take the same (expert) driver, and put him in a stock Z06 on 295 R compounds, with some weight reduction down to 3200 lbs with driver, and then stick him in a Z06 with a full aero mods package, 345 R compounds on the rear, and a completely rebuilt race suspension with the same weight and power, there is no chance you will get the same lap times. The same goes for just about every other car out there.

 

I answered the question about AWD and the 0.5 penalty on the first page of this thread from what I remember.

 

After consideration of making the "formula" for TTS/TTU (and ST2/ST1) more complicated by attempting to add in factors for engine location, OEM body shape aerodynamics/balance/width vs length/coefficients of friction, etc, we determined that the most simple way to cover these factors was just by giving 4-door cars a small reward. Ok, I'll say this one time, a VR3000 is not a boxy sedan, neither is a Corvette, an RX7, a 911, a Viper, a Factory Five Cobra, a 240 SX, or even an Eclipse. 4 door cars are not "sports cars" (with few exceptions). The bodies of all of those cars are to some degree superior to most of the 4 door cars, and some of them in many degrees. Most 4 door cars have a worse coefficent of friction than most 2 door cars that end up in these classes. Most 4 door cars that end up in these classes either look like boxes, or have front/rear balance issues that are very difficult to overcome.

 

NASA has no intention of starting another classing system like in TTA-TTF that individually assigns a modification factor to each model based on body, engine location, etc. We have no intention of trying to ascertain accurate coefficient of friction data for each possible car model (with the front windows open). And, at present, it is my understanding that we don't plan on trying to equate 4 door sedan boxes with Z06's, Vipers, 911's, FFC's, and RX7's (that dominate the field of 2wd cars in these classes.)

 

However, this and other potential rule change suggestions are all being considered during the rules revision process. But, I would say not to hold your breath on this one.

 

And, if you guys decide to do another 16 pages on this, please keep it civil. And, ahmmm, someone again mentioned the Audi--give it a break. Thanks.

[slowoldpoop]

Well, I guess that settles that.

 

I've been reviewing correspondence with Greg from last year, when I was trying to class my car. After we get some confirmation that the rules for 2008 are set, I think I'll try to get my car back to TTA (or maybe TTB!) by working within the points system and detuning a little. Running a lot of boost to make horsepower is bad on the car anyway. I expect a bunch of emails to Greg over the winter trying to work this out.

[1LapSRT]

I honestly have not seen anyone able to show why there shouldn't be a reduction in the AWD penalty and reduction of the 4-door reward.

 

Probably because most people think they are fair!

 

Another brilliant and well thought out contribution to this thread. Thank you.

 

Just because I don't try to make the same useless point 14 different ways, does not make it less of a contribution. I could easily drone on and on about my point, but there is no need to waste that much time.

 

At this point you're not being a good contribution to this forum. Step back and re-evaluate.

 

It appears that I was one the right path after all....

[cosm3os]

Good luck, SOP! See ya next season.

[StealthTT]

I honestly have not seen anyone able to show why there shouldn't be a reduction in the AWD penalty and reduction of the 4-door reward.

 

Probably because most people think they are fair!

 

Another brilliant and well thought out contribution to this thread. Thank you.

 

Just because I don't try to make the same useless point 14 different ways, does not make it less of a contribution. I could easily drone on and on about my point, but there is no need to waste that much time.

 

At this point you're not being a good contribution to this forum. Step back and re-evaluate.

 

It appears that I was one the right path after all....

 

First off grammar nazi: on, not one

 

Second, Greg stated how he felt the cars were best equalized. He won, because he's the rule maker. I'll continue to use the car that I love, and be as competitive as I can.

 

It won't make recruitment any easier. I've talked to many guys that compained about the bias against 2-door, AWD cars. I have to report back that I was unable to change this penalty. They'll probably continue to run with other HPDE organizations. NASA's loss.

[heavychevy]

Well luckily I am only a 15 minute job away from RWD, so if I need the points I can get them, guess it's every man for himself in the 2dr awd category, where every other type of car has from .4-.9 of an advantage. You'd think there were some 2dr awd cars that have set some tracks on fire somewhere.

[slowoldpoop]

Well luckily I am only a 15 minute job away from RWD, so if I need the points I can get them, guess it's every man for himself in the 2dr awd category, where every other type of car has from .4-.9 of an advantage. You'd think there were some 2dr awd cars that have set some tracks on fire somewhere.

 

Back in the 1970s or so, Audi upset the TransAm world with their AWD Quattros. I can't think of any successful 2dr AWD cars since. There must have been some, or NASA wouldn't be so convinced.

[1LapSRT]

It appears that I was one the right path after all....

 

First off grammar nazi: on, not one

 

FYI - That's what's called a typo...not bad grammar.

 

And you forgot the period at the end of your sentence fragment.

[StealthTT]

It appears that I was one the right path after all....

 

First off grammar nazi: on, not one

 

FYI - That's what's called a typo...not bad grammar.

 

And you forgot the period at the end of your sentence fragment.

 

And you started your sentence with 'And'.....oh wait......

[Markus]

It won't make recruitment any easier. I've talked to many guys that compained about the bias against 2-door, AWD cars. I have to report back that I was unable to change this penalty. They'll probably continue to run with other HPDE organizations. NASA's loss.

 

FWIW, I know it's kind of a double-edged sword - but it's always easier to change things from the inside. IE, drivers need to sign up and participate in TT then try to get the rules changed, not the opposite way around. Most drivers aren't going to be competitive their first year anyway (ya I know some guys won a championship their first year but that doesn't happen for everyone).

 

I haven't been totally thrilled with all aspects of the rules, but I keep participating and figure I have to give it a year or two to shake out. Unfortunately - that's also part of racing.

 

NASA's TT numbers have grown tremendously over the last couple of years and should continue to grow - so it is hard for people from the outside looking in to make a valid arguement - unless they come and participate!

 

I hope you stick with it and some of your other buddies show up as well, as I know most of us love seeing different types of cars on track.

 

- Mark

[Spectator Racing]

Yeah, what Markus said.

 

Suggesting a change before bringing any real data other than "only Corvettes won TTA and TTS" is pointless. Come out to the track, compete, see how competitive you really are. If NASA sees that well prepared cars with competent drivers are consistantly performing lower than similarly prepared cars of other makes then the point is made and that brings change.

 

But if a few people are simply complaining that "I would join NASA but it's not fair to my car" there's little point in working with them. Think about this - if you were a NASA director and had to choose between a large group of people who come to every event, support the organization (financially and other ways), and perform well, or a group who haven't ever attended an event and are already complaining, with whom are you going to work? What if the rules are changed and all of these thousands of 2Dr AWD cars still don't show, and the Corvette contingency quits because now their cars are not competitive? Are you picking up my point here? Paying members have a voice, not imaginary friends of members who are allegedly threatening to join other clubs...

 

The rules are very good and accurately cover 99% of cars out there. A legitimate case has to be made for a rule change and at that point I'm sure the appropriate people will consider the option.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Guest

[StealthTT]

You had me till this:

 

Paying members have a voice, not imaginary friends of members who are allegedly threatening to join other clubs...

 

Why do some people have to be an ass when discussing rules? You'd think there was $1,000's in prize money. Or is the keyboard warrior syndrome more prevalent in the A-type personalities found in most racers? I give up, you're tougher than me.

 

What's interesting though, is in this thread you're arguing against the 4-door giveback on AWD cars:

 

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=15555&start=10&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=5c444f5235df8d0730b1ed189a05170c

Edited November 1, 2007 by Guest

[StealthTT]

FWIW, I know it's kind of a double-edged sword - but it's always easier to change things from the inside. IE, drivers need to sign up and participate in TT then try to get the rules changed, not the opposite way around. Most drivers aren't going to be competitive their first year anyway (ya I know some guys won a championship their first year but that doesn't happen for everyone).

 

I haven't been totally thrilled with all aspects of the rules, but I keep participating and figure I have to give it a year or two to shake out. Unfortunately - that's also part of racing.

 

NASA's TT numbers have grown tremendously over the last couple of years and should continue to grow - so it is hard for people from the outside looking in to make a valid arguement - unless they come and participate!

 

I hope you stick with it and some of your other buddies show up as well, as I know most of us love seeing different types of cars on track.

 

- Mark

 

I plan to participate and have fun. That's my goal in this racing hobby. For the most part I have had fun and I plan on having a lot more. If it takes moving to a spec series than so be it. But I'm going to give TT a shot with my 2-door AWD. I'll keep working on the recruitment as well.

 

Thanks to those who contributed constructively. I and others appreciate it.

[IndyWRX1]

I have a question. Who sets the rules for TT a committee or an individual?

Thanks.

[kbrew8991]

Greg writes em with suggestions from regional directors and competitors, and then they're approved by a committee of National Big-Wigs who make sure everything is fair. If they don't like something, it gets changed

 

and that is as I understand it at least

[StealthTT]

I have a question. Who sets the rules for TT a committee or an individual?

Thanks.

 

According to Greg Greenbaum:

 

They're written by Greg Greenbaum the National TT director and then approved by the NASA Executive Director, with input from the other NASA National Executives.

[slowoldpoop]

For what it's worth department.

 

Comments have been made here regarding 2dr vs 4 door (DSMs and Stealths vs Evos and STIs).

 

I noticed on a DSM forum that people are building cars for the Time Attack Series, and are fearful of competing against Evos because the Evos have a limited slip center differential, which DSMs and Stealths do not have. As one expert pointed out, the center diff allows the Evos to launch out of corners.

 

It's interesting to note that DSMs are being built for the Time Attack Series, but not for NASA.

 

This also explains why some people have observed that Evos and STIs launch out of corners so well, but nobody accused my Eclipse of doing so.

[Markus]

For what it's worth department.

 

Comments have been made here regarding 2dr vs 4 door (DSMs and Stealths vs Evos and STIs).

 

I noticed on a DSM forum that people are building cars for the Time Attack Series, and are fearful of competing against Evos because the Evos have a limited slip center differential, which DSMs and Stealths do not have. As one expert pointed out, the center diff allows the Evos to launch out of corners.

 

It's interesting to note that DSMs are being built for the Time Attack Series, but not for NASA.

 

This also explains why some people have observed that Evos and STIs launch out of corners so well, but nobody accused my Eclipse of doing so.

 

Unfortunately - I think the rules are somewhat written to be "all inclusive", ie not just written for what cars are there now but more for what cars there could be.

 

For example, when looking at 2door vs 4door you need to consider: what if the Evo came in coupe form? If it was the exact same car just repackaged as a coupe, then the aero would be better and the car should conceivably be issued a 2door penalty. Or actually I guess the 4door would get a credit under the current rules.

 

I don't want to restart this, because it sounds like Greg has already made up his mind, but to me it seems like the basic premise is "all other things being equal" a couple should have better aero than a sedan, and a small adjustment needs to be made for that. If "all other things aren't equal" between two cars, well that's up to the driver to address via use of modification points, or class selection, or even initial car selection.

 

- Mark

[IndyWRX1]

Hummm, no conflict of interest there.

I still haven't been able to figure out how his SRT-4 w/ LSD that weights less and has more power from the factory can be placed in a base class of TTE and my 02 WRX that weights more and has less horsepower from the factory starts out in TTD.

[1LapSRT]

Hummm, no conflict of interest there.

I still haven't been able to figure out how his SRT-4 w/ LSD that weights less and has more power from the factory can be placed in a base class of TTE and my 02 WRX that weights more and has less horsepower from the factory starts out in TTD.

 

Umm...lets see..... AWD? Maybe?

 

And the SRT starts with one * (7pts) towards the move to TTD and you have no *. Not that big of a seperation.

 

Besides.... It's just a neon!